Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. drug war has met none of its goals (War on Drugs is a Big Government® failure)
AP ^ | 2010-05-13 | Martha Mendoza

Posted on 05/13/2010 9:11:14 PM PDT by rabscuttle385

MEXICO CITY (AP) – After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.

Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.

"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified."

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: biggovernment; drugs; liberalfascism; lping; nannystate; nixon; policestate; progressivism; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

1 posted on 05/13/2010 9:11:14 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc; bamahead

fyi


2 posted on 05/13/2010 9:11:26 PM PDT by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

White House propaganda dutifully reported by the AP.


3 posted on 05/13/2010 9:16:01 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici (Everyone needs valid ID except illegal aliens and the President - only in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

..................(War on Drugs is a Big Government® failure)...............

Yeah, and in Breaking News, everything the government has ever done has always been a blithering hi-cost failure. (Military Excepted!!

Now, welcome to five days of postal service to bring you your new ObamaaCare monthly invoice!


4 posted on 05/13/2010 9:17:40 PM PDT by Noob1999 (LOOSE LIPS, SINK SHIPS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
War on Drugs is a Big Government® failure

Government is a big government failure

5 posted on 05/13/2010 9:17:53 PM PDT by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Kerlikowske was about as worthless a POS chief of police imaginable. Illegal aliens...no biggie. Aggressive bums assaulting people downtown....too bad. Riots in the streets...we can’t do anything. Fags buggering each other in teh parks...its their civil rights. Graffiti....who cares. Make an ‘inappropriate’ comment about someone...OFF WITH YOUR HEAD.

Don’t hang your hat on what this asshole has to say.


6 posted on 05/13/2010 9:17:55 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

How’s that “War on Poverty” thing coming along? We’ve spent trillions on that also. Haven’t heard anything about it lately with the ‘RATS now controlling the country. I guess we must have won because the ‘RATS are now wanting to import more poverty. We’ve got a poverty shortage.


7 posted on 05/13/2010 9:23:21 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Arizona! We're through being a piñata!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

War on Drugs is amazing!
I Live MA, HEROIN is a phone call away.
Cocaian? The same.

If i wanna do it i can.
The “war” is not here.


8 posted on 05/13/2010 9:25:42 PM PDT by mowowie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

I do not hang my hat on what he’s saying. My hat’s hung on the evidence, the illegal activities of our “LEOs” and the Constitution, NONE of which lend support to any continuation of the War on Some Drugs or what it’s done to and cost our society in terms of lives ruined, treasure dissipated foolishly and families torn asunder because a bunch of nameless, faceless jackbooted scumbag drug “warriors” can’t get it through their heads that they have NO Constitutional authority to even EXIST. (Especially when said “warriors” couldn’t hold their water for even five seconds if they ever went up against a REAL warrior. Against unarmed citizens and the occasional illegal, they are really Billy Badass, though, aren’t they?)


9 posted on 05/13/2010 9:31:18 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHEREr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Yeah, the war on drugs has worked as well as...Prohibition!

It seems to me this is one of the very few things the Obama Admin. has gotten somewhat right. People on this site claim to understand market capitalism. One of capitalism's basic tenets is that the supply of any commodity will grow to meet demand.

Sure enough, as the insatiable U.S. demand for drugs has grown over the past 40 years, so has the supply. Farmers who could be growing food for the people in Afghanistan, Colombia, Mexico and other drug-producing countries are growing opium poppies, coca and marijuana instead. Most of it goes directly to the lucrative U.S. market by any means necessary. That brings crime, violence and murderous drug gangs.

If the American demand for dangerous drugs is not reduced the supply will grow ever larger, with terrible consequences for America. It's time to begin attacking the sickness, not the symptoms.

10 posted on 05/13/2010 9:38:49 PM PDT by Bernard Marx (I donÂ’t trust the reasoning of anyone who writes then when they mean than.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

Well, you can vote for Arnold, Or Kucinich, or Paul. Them’s some real he men for ya.


11 posted on 05/13/2010 9:39:04 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

I agree with your post #9.

Recreational drug abuse is a vice, and a foul one, but the ‘war on drugs’ is an abject failure in virtually every analysis.


12 posted on 05/13/2010 9:40:42 PM PDT by Psalm 144 (Let me be clear. The voluntary pancipation of Cinco de Quatro is mandated in all 57 states.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Well, dang, why don’t we just legalize drugs that will sure solve the problem!


13 posted on 05/13/2010 9:56:58 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 144

And overindulging in ANY intoxicant may even be sinful, but since when is SIN the province of secular government?


14 posted on 05/13/2010 10:02:22 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHEREr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Well, the War on Poverty is an even bigger failure. If we’re going to throw in the towel, let’s start with that one.


15 posted on 05/13/2010 10:05:00 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

The wod is a classic example of mental illness. Keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different response. What person with a triple digit IQ still supports the biggest waste of tax money this side of the entitlement monoliths?


16 posted on 05/13/2010 10:06:29 PM PDT by whence911 (Here illegally? Go home. Get in line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
"Well, dang, why don’t we just RElegalize drugs that will sure solve the problem!"

There, fixed it for you. Somehow the republic managed to stagger on with drugs legal right up to about 1913 or 1914, when different ethnic groups were targeted by government for demonization and control. Chinese were users of smokable opium, for example, so their intoxicant of choice was demonized by the oft repeated claim that Chinese men would lure white women into their opium dens, get them high on opium and then debauch them. The American Medical Association was adamant that outlawing drugs was NOT medically indicated and could cause serious problems of its own. But they were ignored by a Congress too interested in asserting more and more control over the lives of others... sort of what they are doing yet to this day. (And recall that the very Progressive Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, he who segregated the armed forces, which had been integrated to that point, was President and was both anxious to HAVE this control AND very intolerant of the "lesser" races.) Some justification for your war on some drugs, huh?

17 posted on 05/13/2010 10:12:05 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHEREr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
Mark this day in your calender. An Obama official actually told the truth.
18 posted on 05/13/2010 10:12:40 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

I did vote for Dr. Paul in the primaries, even registering as a Pubbie so I could. But why do I need a “he-man” when all I want is for government to LEAVE ME ALONE? I want government out of EVERYTHING it does that is not specifically allowed by the tenth amendment. If you want government to regulate others’ lives in the areas YOU find it agreeable for them to do so, what makes you one whit different from Obambi or Pelousy? Or the late, unlamented Teddy “No Pants” Kennedy?


19 posted on 05/13/2010 10:17:54 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHEREr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: whence911

It’s worse than that. It was (and is) a shining example of the Progressive/Liberal mindset, bought hook, line and sinker by some who call themselves “Conservative.” (Of course they might be Conservative in the way that Churchill described them when he said that “A Liberal’s job is to make mistakes and a Conservative’s job is to prevent the mistakes from being righted>” (Paraphrasing)


20 posted on 05/13/2010 10:21:50 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHEREr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Good to the some of the Free Republic Drug Warriors (Armchair Division) still carrying the flag. Who cares about the costs? It’s about being righteous no matter how many other people are kidnapped and murdered. They are sacrifices on the altar of self-righteousness.


21 posted on 05/13/2010 10:23:12 PM PDT by Seruzawa (If you agree with the French raise your hand - If you are French raise both hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

State govs also outlaw drugs. Is that illegal too?


22 posted on 05/13/2010 10:24:05 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

ditto that


23 posted on 05/13/2010 10:27:16 PM PDT by whence911 (Here illegally? Go home. Get in line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: pissant

It’s morally reprehensible and wrong, but it might conceivably be legal. But again, WHY? If you favor the war on some drugs, what sets you apart from the Left? What makes you any different than Obambi or his Constitution-wrecking crew?

(Notice that there is no reason for you not to preach against drug use or use your powers of moral suasion to convince others to abstain; there is EVERY reason to renounce the use of GOVERNMENT FORCE to do your bidding!)


24 posted on 05/13/2010 10:28:54 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHEREr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
There, fixed it for you. Somehow the republic managed to stagger on with drugs legal right up to about 1913 or 1914, when different ethnic groups were targeted by government for demonization and control. Chinese were users of smokable opium, for example, so their intoxicant of choice was demonized by the oft repeated claim that Chinese men would lure white women into their opium dens, get them high on opium and then debauch them. The American Medical Association was adamant that outlawing drugs was NOT medically indicated and could cause serious problems of its own. But they were ignored by a Congress too interested in asserting more and more control over the lives of others... sort of what they are doing yet to this day. (And recall that the very Progressive Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, he who segregated the armed forces, which had been integrated to that point, was President and was both anxious to HAVE this control AND very intolerant of the "lesser" races.) Some justification for your war on some drugs, huh?

And I am so sure the moral structure of the culture is comparable between now and then, right?

But then pro-druggies really aren't real concerned about the state or morality of the culture, are they?

What is really funny, is that many libertarians believe they are closer to the founder's original vision than anyone else, but History shows a much different reality.

Morality was infused into the very legal structure of the states, from anti-sodomy laws, anti-divorce laws, laws establing state religions, blue laws. Our laws were riddled with morality and the culture, for the most part, frowned on whatever the church, in general, frowned upon.

Fast-forward today, where the strong moral and religious culture has been replaced with a me-first and even a me-only culture and you let loose drug legalization and you will come close to destroying this country.
25 posted on 05/13/2010 10:35:26 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

Why? Same reason that pharmaceuticals are tested before approved. Same reason states have a dinking age. Same reason you can’t marry your dad though you might love him dearly. Same reason you can’t walk around naked at the local strip mall. Same reason you can’t use creosote to keep your lawn from growing too fast. Same reason you can’t juggle live grenades in the median of main street. Same reason you can’t ride a cow in the supermarket. The same reason you can’t live in the local park. Same reason you can’t sit and stare in the window of the local grade school.


26 posted on 05/13/2010 10:39:03 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: whence911

Who still supports it? The people on the receiving end of all that tax money, that’s who. They want to keep that gravy train rolling.


27 posted on 05/13/2010 10:50:41 PM PDT by Hepsabeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

No, actually I don’t believe the country will be destroyed by re-legalizing drugs. I believe that the war on some drugs is destroying the Constitution, at an ever more rapid rate. I believe that there is NO PLACE in a free society for the kinds of control over others that is engendered by this “war.” I believe that some drug users, after re-legalization, may put themselves in contention for the Darwin Awards by OD’ing and removing themselves from the realm of the living. I believe that MOST drug users, as it is today, will continue to be responsible and moderate in their recreation, just as MOST folks who use the drug alcohol are... with some notable exceptions, but you aren’t willing to instate Prohibition III are you? And re-criminalize the use of alcohol and outlaw tobacco?

Where did you ever get the notion that it’s OK to have this sort of control over other folks’ lives? Why, I bet it was that Progressive Democrat, Woody Wilson, wasn’t it? And you bought into his lies, didn’t you? As I told pissant, there is no reason on earth for you to NOT go out and preach against drug use (but don’t forget “demon rum” when you do) and use every ounce of moral suasion you can muster, but there is EVERY REASON to renounce the use of government force to do the job for you. Do you call yourself a Christian? If so, can you point out to me where Jesus told His followers to get laws passed to prevent sin? I simply cannot find it ANYWHERE in my Bible. In fact I found quite the opposite. I find where He says that we are supposed to go forth and BE WITNESSES to His saving GRACE. How does that stack up to trashing our Constitution by getting laws passed to do the work that rightly falls on the Church?


28 posted on 05/13/2010 10:51:57 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHEREr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Where did you ever get the notion that it’s OK to have this sort of control over other folks’ lives? Why, I bet it was that Progressive Democrat, Woody Wilson, wasn’t it? And you bought into his lies, didn’t you? As I told pissant, there is no reason on earth for you to NOT go out and preach against drug use (but don’t forget “demon rum” when you do) and use every ounce of moral suasion you can muster, but there is EVERY REASON to renounce the use of government force to do the job for you. Do you call yourself a Christian? If so, can you point out to me where Jesus told His followers to get laws passed to prevent sin? I simply cannot find it ANYWHERE in my Bible. In fact I found quite the opposite. I find where He says that we are supposed to go forth and BE WITNESSES to His saving GRACE. How does that stack up to trashing our Constitution by getting laws passed to do the work that rightly falls on the Church?

The same place that says it is OK to have control over people's lives where Gay Marriage is concerned, Murder is concerned, Deviancy is concerned, Lying is concerned, child abuse is concerned, etc. etc. etc.

God's word, the Bible.

The same book the founder's used to guide them through the process of designing the legal structure of this country and many of the State laws of the time.

But libertarians, mistakenly believe that the founders didn't have this "problem", but were instead libertarians themselves.

They weren't as history shows.

They were Christian men who relied on their understanding of God's word containing both laws for men's lives and describing the basic selfish evil nature of man, to design a system the protects against the selfish nature of Man and creates a framework, where a basic morality was meant to be a guiding factor.

Libertarians are basicly the greedy, anarchist, ungodly version of the GOP.

Not that the GOP does not have it's problems, it does, and we are doing the best to correct those problems, but the Libertarian party is not the solution.
29 posted on 05/13/2010 11:00:12 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Gee whiz, just about everything you list (except the “dad” part. Eeew!! Icky! You’re sick!) sounds just like what LOCAL COMMUNITIES should do to control PUBLIC BEHAVIORS. Something I have no issues with whatsoever. It is what one does IN PRIVATE or with consenting others that is not the business of government.

Oh, and the drinking age thing... that is something best left to FAMILIES to deal with, again NOT THE LEGITIMATE province of government. And there is (once more) NO AUTHORITY GRANTED to government to “approve” or disapprove pharmaceuticals, period. That was, once again, a gift from the Progressive Left (this time the Pubbie, Teddy Roosevelt, another big government power-grabber).

Why is it that people like you, personable and even likable in many other ways, have swallowed so much of the big government Kool Aid?


30 posted on 05/13/2010 11:02:57 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc; pissant
Do you call yourself a Christian? If so, can you point out to me where Jesus told His followers to get laws passed to prevent sin?

You apparently have not read the complete New Testament.

Just look for the scripture where Jesus said, and I paraphrase, "I came not to destroy the law, but to fullful the law" and also, "Do not change the law one jot or tittle".

He was referring to the Old Testament, you remember that right?

The old Testament that included laws for just about everything, laws that were meant for a Government to enforce, even though Jesus was referring to his goal of changing Men's hearts, he surely meant, as well, that the laws of our land should reflect the laws in the Old Testament that he came to enforce in the hearts of Men.

Do you feel otherwise?
31 posted on 05/13/2010 11:04:33 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Oh, where to begin? Hmmmm...

Homosexual “marriage” is wrong because it implies family. Families often involve CHILDREN. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce their own kind, there must be recruitment. This involves the participation of children (not unlike that homosexual professor or whatever he was at Duke, offering up his FIVE YEAR OLD foster child on the internet for sex with anyone who had the right price). Children are NOT capable of giving informed consent to such acts; thus they are VICTIMS of these predators. Thus, such “marriage” can rightly be outlawed. (And I am no longer willing to allow homosexuals to hold sway over the word “gay.” They are NOT gay (happy, even giddy sometimes); they are mostly miserable and to allow them to further corrupt the language as they have corrupted society is unacceptable to me and morally WRONG!)

Murder, lying (mostly), child abuse, deviancy (involving others INVOLUNTARILY, including animals), rape, robbery, et cetera, all have one thing in common, which is why they are (almost) universally banned: THERE IS AN INJURED PARTY who has either not GIVEN consent to be part of that activity OR is incapable, either by age or mental capacity, of giving voluntary, informed consent.

Drug usage is a VOLUNTARY, consensual activity. Please try again.

(Oh, and by the way, I am NOT a Libertarian. I am a STRICT Constitutionist.)


32 posted on 05/13/2010 11:20:16 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

According to Paul (who should know), we are NO LONGER UNDER THE LAW or bound by it. We are under God’s GRACE as expressed by Christ’s death on the cross AND HIS RESURRECTION, giving us victory over not only sin and the LAW (by His sacrifice) but over DEATH ITSELF. Yes, there are things we should not do, as Christians, it’s true. But our relationship to the law of the Old Testament has changed completely.


33 posted on 05/13/2010 11:25:15 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc; pissant; SoConPubbie

dcwusmc, why are you always posting this drug legalization crap?

pissant and SoConPubbie are 100% correct—states have the legal right to make drugs illegal (and will do so) no matter what the federal government does. Plus, the federal government is constitutionally permitted to regulate interstate commerce and ban the import of whatever drugs it wants.


34 posted on 05/14/2010 2:21:26 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Governor Palin paid her dues to Juan McPain and is backing away (and that's very encouraging!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; ..
Oh sure it has...It's militarized most of our police forces, made property rights a joke, and destroyed the 4th amendment!
(I'm laying it on thick today!)




Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
35 posted on 05/14/2010 6:00:57 AM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA; SoConPubbie
Rasmussen has the California ballot initiative to tax and regulate marijuana ahead 49%-38% as of last November.

Suppose CA does pass the measure. Would you support its Tenth Amendment prerogative to enact the program without fedgov interference? Or, would you support fedgov shutting down the program under authority of the Commerce Clause?

36 posted on 05/14/2010 6:33:23 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

what we got was gang violence, prostitution, and crooked cops from the “drug war”.


37 posted on 05/14/2010 6:41:14 AM PDT by ken21 (i am not voting for a rino-progressive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
War on Drugs is a Big Government® failure

The 'War on Drugs' is unconstitutional as Hell.

38 posted on 05/14/2010 6:43:08 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am not a administrative, corporate, collective, legal, political or public entity or ~person~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Would I support the right of a state to legalize drugs within its borders? Yes.

Would I vote to legalize marijuana in my own state. Nope.

My opinion of the Commerce Clause? If the activity doesn’t involve commerce (buying and selling of goods) and isn’t among the several states (between states), the Commerce Clause does not apply.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

I think Wickard v. Filburn is one of the most blatant power grabs in the history of this nation. It was legal in the sense that the SCOTUS ruled, but it was clearly an immoral, subversive, and dishonest interpretation of the Constitution.


39 posted on 05/14/2010 7:19:40 AM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

“U.S. drug war has met none of its goals (War on Drugs is a Big Government® failure)”

It’s said that those who think socialism has always failed misunderstand its purpose. The same can be said about the WoD.

I think it has met plenty of its goals: terrorizing citizens without repercussion, trillions of taxpayer dollars soaked up, not to mention asset forfeiture to incentivize arrests. They get lifetime sinecures in a bloated bureaucracy, and they get lots of cool toys to play with. The exact opposite of failure.


40 posted on 05/14/2010 7:57:01 AM PDT by fnord (497 and a half feet of rope? ... I just carry it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici
White House propaganda dutifully reported by the AP.

Sometimes, even propaganda is true.

The "war on drugs" is lost. The War on our Rights continues apace.

41 posted on 05/14/2010 8:09:09 AM PDT by zeugma (Waco taught me everything I needed to know about the character of the U.S. Government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

Please point out to me just WHERE the Founders said it would be OK for FedGov to use the ICC to ban or prohibit one solitary thing. Anything at all. Because their sole purpose for putting that clause in there was to ensure that the Several States did NOT do stupid stuff like put tariffs on goods coming in from another State or even just passing through from seaport to another State. THAT was their whole intent, not some penumbra or emanation that gave Congress authority to ban stuff or behave as they are with the so-called health care bill. Read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers plus the writings of Jefferson. What you allege is mentioned as NOT being a power given to FedGov.

And if you don’t LIKE what I post, don’t read it. Because it’s all part and parcel of the same thing: RESTORING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE REPUBLIC.

And if you want to talk about the States, fine. Remember, the Founders specifically stated in the ORIGINAL Founding Document that ours was to be a government whose JUST powers were given to it with and by “consent of the governed.” Now, I don’t know about you, but an HONEST man will acknowledge that he cannot give his consent to having something done in his name or on his behalf THAT HE HIMSELF DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGITIMATE RIGHT OR AUTHORITY TO DO INDIVIDUALLY IN THE FIRST PLACE. He cannot hire someone to take from another to fund HIS well-being because HE HIMSELF is enjoined from doing so to begin with.

Likewise, he cannot prohibit his neighbor from eating pork, say, because HE hates pigs. So how does he legitimately give his “consent” to having a third party (government) do it for him? HE CANNOT. At MOST he and his other neighbors may properly enjoin the pork eater from cooking and consuming IN A PUBLIC AREA off the pork eater’s property.

You with me so far? Or do I have to use smaller words and put in pictures? Because as long as people like you and your pals want to trash the Constitution in the name of some “war” on something or other, it matters not what, you jackasses are leaving the door wide open for the Left to do the same thing in THEIR turn. FREEDOM means you have to put up with stuff you may not like very much in order to be able to do what YOU want to do.

And that is why I am dead set against ANY form of prohibition by government. It violates the very principles this nation was founded on, the very bedrock of the Republic.


42 posted on 05/14/2010 11:09:39 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

I am going to ask you the same question I asked pissant (and have yet to see answered by anyone. Do YOU have the stones to try?)

In your zeal to control others’ lives by ignoring the Constitution, what exactly is it that would set you apart from the likes of Obambi, Pelousy or Harry Reid?


43 posted on 05/15/2010 1:22:57 AM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

For a professed Christian, your reply was insulting. Clearly you take the WOD very seriously, but that’s no cause to insult or demean other posters.

“You with me so far?”

“Or do I have to use smaller words and put in pictures?”

“Because as long as people like you and your pals want to trash the Constitution in the name of some “war” on something or other...” (No hyperbole there at all...)

“...you jackasses are leaving the door wide open for the Left to do the same thing in THEIR turn.”


44 posted on 05/15/2010 4:55:40 AM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

“The same place that says it is OK to have control over people’s lives where Gay Marriage is concerned, Murder is concerned, Deviancy is concerned, Lying is concerned, child abuse is concerned, etc. etc. etc.

“God’s word, the Bible.”

What Bible would that be? I’ve read the Bible many times, and cannot find anywhere in the Bible, after the collapse of the Kingdom (OT), that it ever says Christians are supposed to use government to force their moral views on other people. All I can find are verses telling Christians to obey the government and pray for peace and freedom to worship as they believe.

Perhaps you can point to one of those verses that says, “Christians should influence the government to make all people behave as thought they were Christians, whether they are or not,” or something like that.

Hank


45 posted on 05/15/2010 5:13:12 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
For a professed Christian, your reply was insulting.

A Christian professes Christ crucified. I am insulted ny many Christians every day, as I watch their lives...

Demean implies you are correct in your assumptions and bigotry. Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is...

46 posted on 05/15/2010 5:19:51 AM PDT by WVKayaker ( Ridicule is the best test of truth. - Philip Dormer Shanhope, Lord Chesterfield)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc; pissant; SoConPubbie; SaraJohnson

dcwusmc: “In your zeal to control others’ lives by ignoring the Constitution, what exactly is it that would set you apart from the likes of Obambi, Pelousy or Harry Reid?”

Your logic is faulty and extreme.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/False_dilemma?qsrc=3044

If I don’t agree with you that drugs should be completely legalized, then I’m trashing the US Constitution. There’s no middle ground, only your definition of the US Constitution applies, and I’m trashing the document if I don’t agree. That’s faulty logic—a false dilemma.

Plus, you present another false dichotomy. Even if I was ignoring the US Constitution, it doesn’t mean I’m like Obama or Pelosi. Opposition to the unfettered distribution of hard drugs is not the same thing as taking property from one citizen to give to another, forcing people to enroll in government health care, etc.

You see the WOD as a simple black and white issue, but that is an extreme view of the US Constitution. I’m not trying to insult you. Even if you could stack the SCOTUS with sympathetic judges and overturn the WOD, the states would set an amendment speed record to grant that power back to the fed. No significant portion of the voting public will ever support the sale of meth, crack, etc. at Wal-Mart.

I’m not posting this to try and convince you to change your mind or because I have the “stones” to refute you. I’m posting this so that others will see the faulty logic in your posts.


47 posted on 05/15/2010 5:29:02 AM PDT by CitizenUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: pissant
State govs also outlaw drugs. Is that illegal too?

Under our beloved constitution that is not the case. However, it is also true that states are free to have whatever drug laws they wish without federal interference.

President Reagan was a good man, but he should have listened to Mrs. Reagan regarding drug policy - "Just Say No" is the only sane thing to do. Asset forfeiture (and the ability of police to confiscate property that is "suspected" as being involved in a drug "crime" is unAmerican. As are the anti-financial privacy laws his administration enacted. Only the corrupt rich get it. Everyone else gets screwed.

48 posted on 05/15/2010 5:38:59 AM PDT by altair (reform (n) - the most abused word in the English language)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

Marijuana is the third most popular recreational drug in America (behind only alcohol and tobacco), and has been used by nearly 100 million Americans. According to government surveys, some 25 million Americans have smoked marijuana in the past year, and more than 14 million do so regularly despite harsh laws against its use. Our public policies should reflect this reality, not deny it.

Marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose. According to the prestigious European medical journal, The Lancet, “The smoking of cannabis, even long-term, is not harmful to health. ... It would be reasonable to judge cannabis as less of a threat ... than alcohol or tobacco.”

Get the facts. See our Library
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7305


49 posted on 05/15/2010 5:39:26 AM PDT by WVKayaker ( Ridicule is the best test of truth. - Philip Dormer Shanhope, Lord Chesterfield)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 89 percent, 754,224 Americans were charged with possession only. The remaining 93,640 individuals were charged with “sale/manufacture,” a category that includes all cultivation offenses, even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use. In past years, roughly 30 percent of those arrested were age 19 or younger.

NORML supports the eventual development of a legally controlled market for marijuana, where consumers could buy marijuana for personal use from a safe legal source. This policy, generally known as legalization, exists on various levels in a handful of European countries like The Netherlands and Switzerland, both of which enjoy lower rates of adolescent marijuana use than the U.S. Such a system would reduce many of the problems presently associated with the prohibition of marijuana, including the crime, corruption and violence associated with a “black market.”


50 posted on 05/15/2010 5:40:36 AM PDT by WVKayaker ( Ridicule is the best test of truth. - Philip Dormer Shanhope, Lord Chesterfield)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson